[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 181 (Tuesday, November 7, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H8535-H8544]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3043, HYDROPOWER POLICY 
  MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
                     3441, SAVE LOCAL BUSINESS ACT

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 607 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 607

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3043) to modernize hydropower policy, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3441) to 
     clarify the treatment of two or more employers as joint 
     employers under the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 607 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 
2017, and H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act.
  H.R. 3043 would modernize Federal regulatory permitting processes for 
the licensing of hydropower projects. Specifically, the bill would 
designate the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, as the 
lead agency for these projects.
  I am a proud supporter of an all-of-the-above energy strategy that 
allows for not only American energy independence, but for American 
energy dominance.

                              {time}  1230

  Hydropower should be a part of that strategy. In the Pacific 
Northwest especially, hydropower is a clean and reliable energy source 
that is particularly abundant. There is remarkable potential for the 
hydropower industry in this region and around the United States.
  In 2015, hydropower accounted for approximately 6 percent of total 
U.S. electricity generation and 46 percent of electricity generation 
from renewable sources. However, less than 3 percent of dams in the 
U.S. produce electricity. That shows just how great the potential is 
here.
  Through this legislation, we can help ease regulatory burdens and 
streamline the permitting process by naming FERC as the lead agency for 
coordinating all Federal authorizations. This will result in balanced 
and more timely decisionmaking and reduce the current duplicative 
oversight regime.
  So how does this benefit the average American?
  Well, having a reliable power source is essential to the world today.
  Even more, this legislation also has the potential to lower energy 
costs and create good-paying jobs. By doing so, we can help Americans 
put away and keep more of their hard-earned money.
  Currently, the hydropower industry employs a workforce of 
approximately 143,000 people, and that number would certainly rise 
under this legislation as we unlock our full potential.
  Now, some of my colleagues have expressed concerns that this 
legislation could hurt the environment, so I want to address that.
  First, hydropower is an entirely clean source of renewable energy. 
Increasing hydropower production actually helps protect the environment 
and promote better public health.
  Second, the legislation makes clear that these permitting reforms 
should have no effect on this Clean Water Act, the Fish and Wildlife 
Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rivers and Harbors 
Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Those laws and their 
protections will remain in place.
  This is simply about promoting a reliable power source, lowering 
energy costs, creating jobs, and unlocking the full potential of an 
all-of-the-above energy strategy.
  Mr. Speaker, I will also note that this rule will provide for 
consideration of four amendments to H.R. 3043, including one minority 
and one bipartisan amendment.
  The other bill covered by the rule is H.R. 3441, the Save Local 
Business Act. As the sponsor of this legislation, I am thrilled to see 
this body taking action to protect millions of jobs and provide clarity 
to America's workers.
  Jesus said that no man can serve two masters, and there is real 
wisdom behind what He said as there is wisdom behind everything He 
said. His teachings are important every day, but that basic principle 
seems particularly important in the context of this legislation.
  For decades, there was a commonsense legal test that determined when 
two or more separate businesses could be considered joint employers and 
held jointly responsible for the same group of employees. Employers had 
to share direct and immediate control over essential terms and 
conditions of employment. As a former labor and employment attorney who 
practiced in this area for decades, I can assure you this was the 
standard that everyone knew and appreciated.
  Well, in 2015, the activist National Labor Relations Board issued a 
ruling

[[Page H8536]]

in Browning-Ferris Industries that upended this cornerstone of Federal 
labor law and created a vague and totally unworkable new joint employer 
policy.
  Making matters even worse and more complicated, Federal agencies then 
incorporated the new standard in their regulatory agenda. Under this 
new standard, two independent businesses could be considered joint 
employers if they make a business agreement that ``indirectly'' or 
``potentially'' impacts their employees. Under some of these standards, 
you can actually be reserved power.
  Just think about the uncertainty and ambiguity this standard could 
cause. It is hard enough for people to even agree on what exactly those 
terms mean. Imagine how confusing it is for Main Street businesses to 
understand and follow that.
  This is not some abstract issue. In fact, I have been hearing and 
talking with job creators and workers in my district about this for 
years. I have sat around the restaurant tables and heard real stories 
and concerns.
  Bob Omainsky, the owner of Wintzell's Oyster House in my home 
district, had this to say about the confusion caused by the new joint-
employer standard: ``If we hire an outside landscaping company to keep 
our lawns lush, I could be considered a joint employer if I show the 
landscapers where to mow. Or, if I contract a food supplier for certain 
ingredients, I could become part of a lawsuit if one of their workers 
complains about overtime pay. The uncertainty is nothing more than 
governmental overreach that is crippling eateries like Wintzell's and 
discouraging growth throughout the restaurant industry.''
  This story and example is not unique to my district. These stories 
exist all over the country from Seattle, Washington, to Miami, Florida; 
and we heard a whole bunch of them in the hearings that we held in 
committee. This is why this bill has earned support from both sides of 
the aisle. This is not a partisan issue, but instead this is about 
protecting jobs and providing clarity to workers.
  Workers shouldn't have to wonder who their employer is. They deserve 
better than a vague and confusing rule that the American Action Forum 
found threatens 1.7 million jobs. Even the Progressive Policy Institute 
issued a statement saying the expanded standard ``may do more harm than 
good.''
  I also want to make one thing perfectly clear: this legislation does 
not remove a single worker protection. All worker protections provided 
by the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and 
the Equal Pay Act remain unchanged and are still available.

  I also want to dispel the myth that this legislation is some 
departure from the norm. In fact, this legislation simply restores the 
agreed-upon legal standard that existed for decades.
  The reality is that the new standard has created so much confusion 
and ambiguity that no one really knows what the law is. There are at 
least nine different legal tests nationwide to determine joint employer 
status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and there are more to come.
  This patchwork of standards creates regulatory uncertainty, 
especially for job creators doing businesses in multiple States. 
Ultimately, this legislation is about providing clarity to workers and 
job creators. It is about protecting the rights of workers and ensuring 
employers have clarity on their responsibilities to their employees, 
and it is about preserving the small businesses that are the backbone 
of our local communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 607 and 
the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, 
which provides for consideration of two deeply flawed pieces of 
legislation.
  H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, is yet 
another attempt by this Republican majority to prioritize corporate 
profits over ensuring people have access to safe and clean drinking 
water.
  This bill would not only threaten our clean water, it would also 
undermine States' rights and Tribal rights by prioritizing power 
generation above all else when deciding whether to grant or extend a 
license to operate a hydropower project.
  Simply put, this bill puts profits ahead of the public interest. By 
giving a rubber stamp commission more power than other expert agencies, 
the bill rigs the process in favor of power producers at the expense of 
States, Tribes, and our environment.
  This bill prioritizes profits over clean water and healthy fisheries 
and should be strongly defeated. Protecting our families and our 
environment should always be our first priority.
  In another giveaway to corporate interests, House Republicans are 
also bringing to the floor this week H.R. 3441, the so-called Save 
Local Business Act, under the false claim that it eliminates 
uncertainty for workers and protects small businesses.
  The truth is a very different story, Mr. Speaker. Joint employment 
standards ensure workers can hold employers accountable for violating 
wage and hour laws, child labor, or refusing to collectively bargain. 
This bill represents a significant and dangerous break from that 
standard and would undermine the rights of American workers.
  This legislation rewards companies that rent employees from staffing 
agencies instead of hiring them directly, and allows them to evade 
responsibility for upholding the rights of those employees, even though 
they profit from their work.
  This bill is not about helping workers or small businesses. This is 
all about giving powerful companies even more power over their 
employees.
  But, Mr. Speaker, what is just as troubling as the content of the 
underlying bills is the process Speaker Ryan and his Republican 
leadership team routinely use to call up this terrible legislation.
  Today we are considering the 49th completely closed rule of the 115th 
Congress. That is right. Today House Republicans are breaking their own 
record for the most closed session of Congress in history. It is 
astounding. This is something you would celebrate in Putin's Russia, 
not here in the United States.
  Since he first took the gavel in 2015, Speaker Ryan has continue to 
shamelessly break his promise to allow a fair and open legislative 
process here in this House.
  In Speaker Ryan's first speech as Speaker in October of 2015, he 
said: ``We need to let every Member contribute. . . . Open up the 
process. Let people participate. A neglected minority will gum up the 
works. A respected minority will work in good faith. Instead of trying 
to stop the majority, they might try to become the majority.''
  Speaker Ryan and I disagree on a great many issues, but I strongly 
agree with what he said in that 2015 speech. We do need to let every 
Member contribute and open up the process here in the House. We do need 
the majority party to respect the minority party so we can actually 
work together on bipartisan solutions.
  But in the 2 years since Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he has, sadly, 
failed to deliver on his commitment to open up the legislative process. 
Things have only gotten worse. In fact, Speaker Ryan is the only 
Speaker who has not allowed a truly open rule to give Members the 
opportunity and the chance to do what their constituents sent them here 
to do and to offer different perspectives and ideas on how to improve 
legislation.
  With each new closed rule they bring to the floor, shutting out 
amendments from both Democrats and Republicans, the cynical hypocrisy 
grows louder and louder. Instead of the people's House, this has, 
sadly, become ``only the people who agree with Paul Ryan's House.''
  I guess my question for the Speaker would be: Did you mean any of 
what you said? Did you forget all those promises you made? Or did you 
have absolutely no intention of keeping those promises once you were in 
power?''
  Every single Member of this House of Representatives was elected to 
represent the people of their district, but

[[Page H8537]]

we cannot do that if the party in the majority blatantly uses strong-
arm tactics like these that prevent us from doing our jobs.
  In 2015, Speaker Ryan also said: ``We need to return to regular 
order. We are the body closest to the people. Every 2 years, we face 
the voters. . . . We represent them. We are supposed to study up and do 
the homework that they cannot do. So when we do not follow regular 
order--when we rush to pass bills a lot of us do not understand--we are 
not doing our job. Only a fully functioning House can truly represent 
the people.''
  Where do I begin?
  Literally just a few months ago, Speaker Ryan and the Republican 
leaders of this House were recklessly steamrolling their healthcare 
bill to the House floor without holding anything close to the number of 
hearings that we held when the Affordable Care Act was passed.
  Instead, they led a haphazard process where the bill was drafted in 
secret behind closed doors--locked doors--without any input from rank 
and file Members of Congress and the American people. Mr. Speaker, that 
is not regular order. That is unconscionable. That disrespects this 
House.
  Today, when asked by a reporter about this record-breaking closed 
process, Speaker Ryan responded: ``Absolutely we have an open 
process.''
  Really?
  Let's review his record this Congress: Zero open rules--zero. Forty-
nine completely closed rules.
  Open process?
  Open process my foot, Mr. Speaker.
  I guess in the age of Donald Trump, words simply don't matter 
anymore. Black is white, up is down, open is closed, and politicians 
can say whatever they think sounds good and they think they can get 
away with it--facts be damned.
  If Speaker Ryan were serious about a fair and open process, he would 
not turn this House into a rubber stamp for Donald Trump. He would let 
us be the independent voice the people of our districts elected us to 
be. He would not routinely shut out the voices of Democrats and 
Republicans. He would let this House actually debate the serious 
legislation and issues that come before us.

                              {time}  1245

  With one closed rule after another on each bill that comes to the 
floor, Speaker Ryan has completely shut out both Democrats and rank-
and-file Republicans, routinely blocking amendments we offer.
  This is not how the Congress is supposed to work. Our constituents 
deserve a Congress that actually debates the bills that will affect 
their lives. They deserve better.
  I refuse to sit by while the Republican leadership makes a mockery of 
this House. American voices will not be silenced.
  The Speaker may grant promises of openness, inclusiveness, and 
regular order, but we just lived through the most closed year in the 
history of this institution, and the year isn't even over yet, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Republicans ought to remember that they will not always be in the 
majority. I don't think a Democratic majority could be this bad on 
basic process, even if we tried. But any Member who votes for this 
record-breaking closed rule today had better not have crocodile tears 
for regular order and openness when they find themselves in the 
minority some day in the future. Anyone who supports 49 closed rules 
and zero open rules in a single year loses all credibility on the issue 
of openness.
  My Republican friends should be ashamed--ashamed--of diminishing this 
House and diminishing its Members and their thoughtful ideas. I urge 
Democrats and Republicans to take a stand and vote ``no'' on this 
closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the work that the Rules 
Committee has done this year and of the leadership in this Congress and 
how we have handled legislation.
  Unlike our Democratic colleagues who would shut the doors and refuse 
to accept late amendments from Members, the chairman of our committee 
has made it a point to ensure every single Member has the opportunity 
to submit their amendments and come to the committee to share their 
thoughts and concerns.
  Under this model of transparency and openness, the committee has 
spent countless hours listening and considering Member testimony. In 
fact, we have welcomed over 330 Members to testify, this Congress 
alone, before the Rules Committee. We have made in order 864 
amendments, including 403 from Democrats, 341 from Republicans, and 120 
bipartisan amendments.
  Unfortunately, our friends across the aisle have become more 
interested in derailing legislation than actually improving 
legislation. For example, Democrats politicized an open appropriations 
process by offering poison pill amendments meant to kill legislation 
they had no intention of supporting, regardless of the outcome.
  These tactics have fundamentally changed the way we do business. 
Instead of offering thoughtful ideas intended to shape a measure, their 
dilatory tactics are for one purpose and one purpose only: to score 
political points.
  The Rules Committee will not let these political games get in the way 
of fulfilling the promises we made to the American people who elected 
this majority. That is why the chairman of our committee has made it a 
priority to listen to all Members. I would ask all of you who come to 
the Rules Committee to watch our committee listening to all Members.
  We are also committed to moving the majority's progrowth agenda 
forward. As a result of our efforts, we have had a record of success in 
this House. To date, we have passed almost 400 bills out of the House.
  This further underscores that the House is here to work, we are here 
to serve, and we are here to get results. But the proof is in the 
facts. John Adams said: ``Facts are stubborn things.''
  As of November 7 of this year, in just the first session of this 
Congress, we have provided for the consideration of 864 amendments on 
the House floor. Under Speaker Pelosi, during the entirety of the 111th 
Congress, both sessions, she had only made in order 778. You tell me 
who has an open House and who had a closed House.
  There is no shame on this side at all. There is great pride in the 
work we are doing for the American people, and we are not going to let 
anyone get in the way of our making sure that we fulfill the promises 
we made.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Newhouse), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to thank my friend, the 
gentleman from Alabama, for letting me participate in this very 
important debate today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but specifically to voice 
my very strong support for one of the bills of the underlying 
legislation. That would be H.R. 3043, which is the Hydropower Policy 
Modernization Act of 2017.
  This legislation, which is sponsored and spearheaded by my good 
friend and fellow Washingtonian, Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers, 
will improve the licensing process for U.S. hydropower resources by 
promoting accountability as well as transparency, by requiring greater 
cooperation among Federal and State agencies, as well as by reducing 
needless duplication of efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a strong, steadfast supporter of hydropower--I 
admit that--which, as America's first renewable electricity source, has 
provided our country with low-cost, clean, reliable energy for over a 
century. In my own home State of Washington, nearly 70 percent of our 
energy is derived from hydropower.
  While there are still some misguided, extreme efforts to breach our 
dams and remove these critical sources of electric generation, I 
believe we need to increase our use of clean and renewable resources. 
By passing the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act, we can take a very 
major step in doing just that.
  Mr. Speaker, FERC, or the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
serves as the lead agency to coordinate hydropower reviews and convene 
stakeholders to participate in collaborative,

[[Page H8538]]

transparent public proceedings. However, FERC lacks the authority to 
improve the hydropower licensing process, including the ability to 
resolve disputes among agencies and enforce scheduling deadlines.

  Far too often, it is those Federal and State agencies, as well as 
other bureaucratic bodies, that stand in the way of moving these 
licensing efforts forward. In fact, in response to a House Energy and 
Commerce Committee's subcommittee hearing, FERC reported that there are 
26 separate cases where the Commission has finished its environmental 
review and is currently waiting for action to be completed by another 
agency before FERC can issue a decision on any particular project.
  Mr. Speaker, the licensing process for these projects should not be 
taking 10 years or more. Natural gas-fired facilities and other carbon-
based energy sources are being approved in considerably less time. 
Meanwhile, less than 3 percent of the dams in this country produce 
electricity.
  I will continue to support efforts to increase hydropower generation 
that will provide our country with reliable, stable, and clean energy. 
We can usher in a new era of U.S. energy independence derived from our 
very first renewable energy source by streamlining these processes.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and, particularly, 
its underlying legislation, H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy 
Modernization Act of 2017.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thought I had heard everything. The gentleman from 
Alabama got up and said how proud he is of the Rules Committee and of 
the process in this House. Oh, my God. The fact that the gentleman 
would get up and say that with a straight face, you take my breath 
away. It is unbelievable.
  Today, we are considering our 49th closed rule of the 115th Congress, 
officially making this the most closed session in Congress in history, 
and the gentleman is proud of that.
  More than half of the rules Republicans have reported out of the 
Rules Committee have not allowed any amendments. That means that no 
Member, Democrat or Republican, can offer their ideas on the House 
floor.
  The gentleman says: Well, we want to prevent killer amendments from 
being made in order. So all the Republicans that offer amendments to 
the Rules Committee have killer amendments? It is ridiculous to say 
that about the Democratic amendments.
  In total, just so the gentleman understands this, in total, the Rules 
Committee has blocked more than 1,300 amendments this year. That is 
1,300. They are all killer amendments? They are all not deserving of a 
debate in the people's House?
  They blocked 1,300 amendments, including 955 Democratic amendments. 
You blocked 260 Republican amendments and 121 bipartisan amendments.
  Blocking these amendments has a very real impact. A bad process 
produces bad policy. Shutting out input from the vast majority of 
Members, both Democrats and Republicans, may make it easier for you to 
jam your agenda through the House, but that speed comes at the expense 
of the policy itself.
  When you block amendments, you are shutting down debate on incredibly 
important issues, issues that this House of Representatives should be 
debating and voting on.
  Here are a few examples of germane amendments that the majority 
didn't think were worthy of a debate and an up-or-down vote in the 
House. These were totally in order.
  There is my bipartisan amendment to require a Presidential 
determination and congressional action to increase troop levels in 
Afghanistan. With the longest war in American history, I thought maybe 
it was worth some debate, but the Rules Committee said no to that.
  Also, a bipartisan amendment to phase out the 2001 Authorization for 
Use of Military Force, they blocked that.
  Also, an amendment to ensure that the U.S. doesn't withdraw from the 
Paris climate agreement--I know my Republican friends think climate 
change is a hoax. They don't believe in science. But, you know what? 
You ought to have the guts to debate it. But you blocked it.
  You blocked an amendment for funding for troops in Syria.
  You blocked an amendment to create the National Russian Threat 
Response Center.
  The list goes on and on and on.
  These aren't killer amendments. These are important issues that get 
blocked time and time again. These issues are at the very core of our 
responsibilities here in Congress, and you blocked them from even being 
considered by the full House.
  In this Congress, the majority has blocked over 1,300 amendments from 
coming to the floor. You are proud of that? That is disgraceful.
  I truly hope that breaking the closed rule record is a wake-up call 
and that some of you over there will decide to do things a little bit 
differently around here and a little bit better around here, starting 
next week with your tax bill, but I am not going to hold by breath.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Ellison).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would request that all Members 
direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the 
Republican effort to roll back the joint-employer rule that the Obama 
administration promulgated. This joint-employer rule is an attack on 
workers, and it is an attack on franchisee businesses.
  For people watching, Mr. Speaker, understand that when a franchisor, 
the big headquarters, tells a franchisee, ``You have got to do every 
single thing we tell you. You basically work for us. We are going to 
tell you the size of the sandwich. We are going to tell you the kind of 
oil to use. We are going to tell you how to schedule your workers. We 
are going to, basically, control your enterprise, though you are 
supposed to be an independent business,'' the Obama administration 
said, ``We are going to treat you as if you are joint employers.'' So 
if there is wage theft or there is unfairness on the job or some 
problem that comes up with workers, then the big company, the 
headquarters, will also be held responsible for solving the problem.

  What the Republicans do today, Mr. Speaker, is say: ``No, we might 
impose all these conditions on you per the franchisee agreement, but, 
if there are problems, it is going to be your problem, franchisee.''
  This is absolutely unfair. As workers are going all over this country 
trying to get higher wages, this is a whole movement for them to get 
livable wage for people who work every single day at our fast-food 
chains. They are going to their local franchisee owners to ask for 
those wages.
  But if the franchisor says: ``You can't pay any more than this. We 
are going to restrict you in multiple number of ways. We are going to 
make you sell food items at a cost that you can't even sustain, like 
the dollar menu''--those things cost more than a dollar, folks. But if 
the big headquarters says you have got to charge a dollar as a 
promotion, then the franchisee has to eat that.
  But when workers need more money, the big company makes that 
impossible, and then workers are left holding the bag along with the 
franchisee.
  The joint-employer rule, holding both sides responsible for those 
wage thefts to pay for hours, these things make a more fair process and 
require the big headquarters to take responsibility as well.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this. This is an antiworker bill. This is an 
anti-small business bill, which is somewhat surprising to me, given 
that my friends on the other side of the aisle say they are for small 
business, but, really, they are just for big business. If you have any 
doubts about that, all you have got to do is look at this tax bill they 
are putting out there.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was giving the statistics earlier, I left one 
very important one out. I can't believe I forgot this.
  Of the almost 400 bills we passed in this House this year, 80 percent 
of them have been bipartisan. So this record production of bills we 
have had in the House this year has benefited both sides of the aisle 
as we have

[[Page H8539]]

worked together to come up with commonsense policies for the American 
people.

                              {time}  1300

  I am very proud of that work and that progress we have made in this 
House. The gentleman from Minnesota acted as if this bill, the Save 
Local Business Act, is something to benefit big companies, but let me 
tell you who I, and virtually all of us who are supporting this bill, 
have heard from: small businesses in our districts that are begging us 
to pass this bill.
  I have had dozens of meetings in my own district. I know of hundreds 
of meetings that have been held across the country between Members of 
this House on both sides of the aisle and small businesses in their 
districts that say: Please pass this bill.
  This isn't for the big businesses in America. This is for the small, 
Main Street businesses in our communities and for the people who work 
there.
  At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Norman), one of the newest Members of the House who 
has already made a distinguished mark here.
  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in adamant support of the rule 
and, in particular, of H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act.
  Let me say for my good friend from Massachusetts, you know, the 
amendments that he is referring to that have been rejected, they have 
been rejected because they are against small business and they are for 
Big Government, which American voters have rejected and will continue 
to reject.
  It may be cliche to say that small and local businesses are the 
backbone of our economy, but, at the end of the day, there is no 
denying that statement. Small businesses truly are the engine that keep 
our economy moving, and when they suffer, our whole economy suffers.
  Just take the last 8 years with the minimal growth that we have had. 
Since 2015, when the National Labor Relations Board adopted an expanded 
definition of the joint employers standard, upending decades of 
precedent and redefining who an employer is, there has been much 
confusion and ambiguity. For example, since then, there have been over 
65,000 letters sent to Congress expressing confusion and asking for 
clarity in the aftermath of this rule.
  This is unacceptable. Locally owned franchises are America's unseen 
small businesses, and in my district alone, the Fifth District of South 
Carolina, there are roughly 2,000 establishments that provide over 
15,000 jobs with an economic output of over $1 billion.
  Small business development, economic growth, and entrepreneurs will 
continue to be hurt by the National Labor Relations Board's excessive 
broad definition of the term ``joint employer.'' Until Congress finds a 
concrete solution with this piece of legislation, it will continue to 
do so.
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, provides clarity for small and local 
businesses as to what it means to be a joint employer, restoring 
necessary clarity for employers and employees alike.
  I strongly encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to support this bipartisan bill helping small businesses all across the 
Nation, and I congratulate the Congressman from Alabama for proposing 
this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Ellison) for a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from 
United Steelworkers urging a ``no'' vote on the joint employer bill.

                                          United Steelworkers,

                                 Pittsburgh, PA, November 1, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 850,000 members of 
     the United Steelworkers (USW), I strongly urge you to oppose 
     H.R. 3441, the ludicrously named ``Save Local Business Act''. 
     The bill has virtually nothing to do with small businesses 
     but will greatly restrict the definition of employer under 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
       Targeting a National Labor Relations Board decision, 
     Browning-Ferris Industries, H.R. 3441 is not only drafted to 
     repeal a decision where the employer tried to avoid 
     collective bargaining responsibilities through 
     subcontracting, but radically changes the Fair Labor 
     Standards Act. Currently, under the FLSA, employers cannot 
     hide behind labor contractors or franchisees when they set 
     conditions of employment. H.R. 3441 strips nearly a century 
     of workforce protections to give large employers almost 
     unfettered ability to hide from long established employer 
     responsibilities.
       The rise in temporary or precarious work in the United 
     States is fast becoming an unfortunate norm in the economy. A 
     recent study on the rise of temporary employment found the 
     proportion of American workers engaged in ``alternative 
     work'' jumped from 10.7% to 15.8% in the last decade. When in 
     the last decade 94% of net job growth is in the alternative 
     work category, workers continuously find themselves unable to 
     seek remedy for their grievances or an ability to 
     collectively hold their ultimate employer accountable. H.R. 
     3441 will accelerate the growth of job-instability as 
     employers will be able to manipulate the system to avoid 
     collective bargaining by hiring temporary employees or 
     contractor employees.
       Congress' responsibility to American workers in this time 
     of rising income inequality and precarious work must be to 
     improve access to collective bargaining and stop employer 
     circumvention of U.S. labor laws, not to weaken them. H.R. 
     3441 strips workers of another tool to hold their employers 
     accountable. A vote for this legislation is a vote against 
     working people and the right to democratic representation in 
     the workplace. I urge you to vote no on H.R. 3441.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Leo W. Gerard,
                                          International President.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the 
Signatory Wall and Ceiling Contractors Alliance, which says that this 
legislation would not benefit small businesses that create good jobs. 
It actually would place such employers at a permanent competitive 
disadvantage to unscrupulous companies that seek to thrive solely at 
the expense of the workers and taxpayer-funded social safety net 
programs.

                                                Signatory Wall and


                                 Ceiling Contractors Alliance,

                                  Saint Paul, MN, October 5, 2017.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker and Leader Pelosi: I am writing on behalf 
     of the Signatory Wall and Ceiling Contractors Alliance 
     (SWACCA) to express our strong opposition to H.R. 3441, the 
     ``Save Local Business Act.'' This legislation will not 
     benefit honest small businesses that create good jobs with 
     family-sustaining wages and benefits. It will actually place 
     such employers at a permanent competitive disadvantage to 
     unscrupulous companies that seek to thrive solely at the 
     expense of their workers and taxpayer-funded social safety-
     net programs.
       SWACCA is a national alliance of wall and ceiling 
     contractors committed to working in partnership with our 
     workers and our customers to provide the highest-quality, 
     most efficient construction services. Through the superior 
     training, skill, and efficiency of our workers SWACCA 
     contractors are able to provide both cost-effective 
     construction services and middle class jobs with health and 
     retirement benefits. Our organization prides itself on 
     representing companies that accept responsibility for paying 
     fair wages, abiding by health and safety standards, workers 
     compensation laws, and unemployment insurance requirements.
       Unfortunately, however, we increasingly find ourselves 
     bidding against companies that seek to compete solely on the 
     basis of labor costs. They do so by relieving themselves of 
     the traditional obligations associated with being an 
     employer. The news is littered with examples of contractors 
     who have sought to reduce costs by willfully violating the 
     laws governing minimum wage, overtime, workers compensation 
     unemployment insurance, and workplace safety protections. The 
     key to this disturbing business model is a cadre of labor 
     brokers who claim to provide a company with an entire 
     workforce that follows them to job after job. It is a 
     workforce that the actual wall or ceiling contractor controls 
     as a practical matter, but for which it takes no legal 
     responsibility. In this model workers receive no benefits, 
     are rarely covered by workers compensation or unemployment 
     insurance, and are frequently not paid in compliance with 
     federal and state wage laws. The joint employment doctrine is 
     an important means for forcing these unscrupulous contractors 
     to compete on a level playing field and to be held 
     accountable for the unlawful treatment of the workers they 
     utilize.
       As an association representing large, medium, and small 
     businesses, we oppose H.R. 3441 because it proposes a 
     radical, unprecedented re-definition of joint employment 
     under both the FLSA and the NLRA that goes far beyond 
     reversing the standard articulated by the NLRB in Browning-
     Ferris or retuning to any concept of joint employment that 
     has ever existed under the FLSA since the Act's passage. H.R. 
     3441's radical and unprecedented redefinition of joint 
     employment would proliferate the use of fly-by-night labor 
     brokers by ensuring that no contractor using a workforce 
     provided by a labor broker would ever be deemed a joint 
     employer. This is because the bill precludes a finding of 
     joint employment unless a company controls each ``of the 
     essential terms

[[Page H8540]]

     and conditions of employment (including hiring employees, 
     discharging employee, determining individual employee rates 
     of pay and benefits, day-to-day supervision of employees, 
     assigning individual work schedules, positions and tasks, and 
     administering employee discipline)''. H.R. 3441 goes further 
     by expressly countenancing a company using labor brokers 
     retaining control of the essential aspects of the workers' 
     employment in a ``limited and routine manner'' without facing 
     any risk of being a joint employer.
       Simply put, H.R. 3441 would create a standard that would 
     surely accelerate a race to the bottom in the construction 
     industry and many other sectors of the economy. It would 
     further tilt the field of competition against honest, ethical 
     businesses. Any concerns about the prior administration's 
     recently-rescinded interpretative guidance on joint 
     employment under the FLSA or the NLRB's joint employment 
     doctrine enunciated in Browning-Ferris can be addressed in a 
     far more responsible manner. Make no mistake, H.R. 3441 does 
     not return the law to any prior precedents or standards. It 
     creates a radical, new standard. This standard will help 
     unethical employers get rich not be creating more value, but 
     instead by ensuring their ability to treat American workers 
     as a permanent pool of low-wage, subcontracted labor that has 
     neither benefits nor any meaningful recourse against them 
     under our nation's labor and employment laws.
       On behalf of the membership of SWACCA, thank you in advance 
     for your attention to our concerns about this legislation. 
     Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any 
     questions or require additional information.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Timothy J. Wies,
                                                        President.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to this point I have been making about 
how this is now officially the most closed Congress in history, and I 
think people need to keep that in mind before they vote for this rule.
  But the gentleman from Alabama, again--I guess in this age of Trump, 
I mean, you can twist things all kinds of different ways, you know--
bragged about all this great bipartisanship here. In that number that 
he was referring to, a number of bills that were supported in a 
bipartisan way, a big chunk of them are things like naming post 
offices, suspension bills that are not controversial, Hats Off to 
Teachers Day, those types of bills.
  But on major legislation, whether it is healthcare or whether it is 
this crummy tax bill that they are going to be bringing up, this place 
is polarized because they block out any competing ideas.
  Let me again reiterate for my colleagues: the Rules Committee has 
blocked more than 1,300 amendments this year. That is just this year 
alone.
  Now, I already mentioned amendments on the AUMF, climate change, 
Afghanistan, and more. I think those are important subjects. But the 
Members offering these amendments, I think, no matter what you believe 
about these amendments, deserve the right to be heard by the whole 
House and to receive an up-or-down vote.
  But here are a few more examples of the germane amendments that my 
friends on the Republican side on the Rules Committee blocked under the 
closed and structured rules. They blocked an amendment to prohibit the 
repeal of DACA.
  You know, I mean, 800,000 people's lives now are in the balance 
because of Donald Trump rescinding the protection for these DREAMers, 
and he said: Congress, you do it. You fix it.
  Well, we tried to bring an amendment to the floor to have a debate 
and fix it, and if my Republican friends don't want to vote for it, 
they can vote ``no.'' But they blocked it. They blocked an amendment to 
bar funds from being spent on this stupid, idiotic wall that the 
President seems enamored with along our border. They blocked an 
amendment to increase funding to fight rural domestic violence and 
child abuse. They blocked several amendments to ensure the Trump family 
doesn't profit off the Presidency, and we all know that they are, but 
we can't even have that debate.
  They blocked an amendment to protect asylum seekers and human 
trafficking victims, and they blocked an amendment to ensure victims of 
incest can have access to abortion care. I can go on and on and on. I 
mean, they blocked Congressman Grothman's budget amendment twice. He is 
a Republican. It was germane. He even testified before the Rules 
Committee, but you blocked it.
  Last week, you blocked Representative Jimmy Duncan's amendment to 
allow doctors to practice medicine out of State on a volunteer basis. 
Germane. It may be a good idea. It deserves to be debated. You blocked 
it.
  Is that a poison pill? Is that what the gentleman was referring to? 
You know, process matters, and it matters for this reason, because when 
you have a lousy process, you end up with a lousy product.
  I know it is not sexy to talk about process, you know, but it is 
important. It is important that we do our jobs, we debate these issues, 
and that we listen to Democrats and Republicans, you know, come before 
us with ideas: some we may agree with, some we may not, but let's have 
that debate. What is wrong with that? Why is that such a radical idea 
in this place? To get up and say I am proud of this; I am proud that we 
are now the most closed Congress in the history of our country? That is 
something to be proud of?
  I think that is something to be ashamed of. I think it diminishes 
this House of Representatives, and it diminishes every single member of 
this House, Democrats and Republicans alike.
  This is supposed to be a deliberative body. Let's deliberate. Let's 
not negotiate things in the back room and then rush it to the floor and 
demand an up-or-down vote. You know, you don't have a monopoly on good 
ideas, and there are people in your own party who have some good ideas, 
too, and I think we have good ideas as well. And if you want 
bipartisanship, true bipartisanship, and you want to end the 
polarization, open the process a little bit. That would be helpful.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and very proud of the bipartisanship 
that we have had in this House this year to pass all these bills. Let 
me note just two very substantive bills, one last week and one today.
  Last week, we passed a bill that got rid of this IPAB group that is 
going to take money, is proposed to take money out of Medicare. It was 
cosponsored by 45 Democrats, and dozens and dozens of Democrats voted 
for it on the floor last week. Today, this Save Local Business Act is 
bipartisan in its sponsorship and, I predict, on the vote of the floor 
today.
  Now, how important is that? Let me read to you just a few of the 
organizations that support this bill: the American Hotel and Lodging 
Association, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, Associated 
Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors, the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, the 
Coalition to Save Local Businesses, The Latino Coalition, National 
Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, 
National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Retail Federation, U.S. 
Travel Association, the Capital Research Center, Generation 
Opportunity, Heritage Action for America, Hispanic Leadership Fund, the 
Independent Women's Institute for Liberty, the James Madison Institute, 
the National Taxpayers Union, the Tea Party Nation, Food Marketing 
Institute, National Franchisee Association, National Apartment 
Association, Retail Industry Leaders Association, and the Workplace 
Fairness Institute, and I could have dozens and dozens more.
  The truth of the matter is, these are very important bills that we 
bring before this floor, and most of them are bipartisan. The ones we 
have today are bipartisan bills.

  Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that this House has a lot to be proud 
of, of the great work we have done this year, and I am most proud of 
the fact that, in most of those cases, we have been working together.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right, we can work together and come 
together in a bipartisan way to pass a post office bill, to name a post 
office after somebody, but my friends didn't think it was important to 
come together and work with us on improving the Affordable Care Act, 
totally cut out of the process.
  I am willing to bet that when the tax bill comes up, the tax bill 
that is going

[[Page H8541]]

to give wealthy people a big tax break and raise taxes on a lot of 
middle-income families, that will be a very closed process as well. So 
yeah, you know, Hats Off to Teachers Day, naming post offices, stuff 
that, I mean, Western civilization, as we know it, doesn't hinge upon, 
yeah, there is lot of bipartisanship here.
  We had a couple of bills yesterday that passed unanimously. I mean, 
we had votes on them. They were noncontroversial. But when it comes to 
anything really meaningful, there is no bipartisanship, and there is no 
openness here.
  Again, let me repeat, so my colleagues understand this. This is the 
most closed session of Congress ever in history, and the year is not 
even over yet. Today, we are considering the 49th closed rule of the 
115th Congress, officially making it the most closed session of 
Congress in history. More than half of the rules the Republicans have 
reported out of the Rules Committee have not allowed any amendments. 
They have blocked over 1,300 amendments.
  Speaker Ryan now is the only speaker who has not allowed an open 
rule. Speakers Boehner, Pelosi, Hastert, and Gingrich all allowed some 
open rules. This is the first time we never had one.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I would say to my colleagues, process matters, 
and this is really a sad day for this House, for this institution, and 
I hope my Republican friends think about it a little bit because you 
are doing great damage to this institution, and that makes me very sad.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when we adopt this rule later on this afternoon, when we 
adopt my bill, let me tell you who is going to be happy. Tens and tens 
of thousands of small businesses and hundreds of thousands of their 
employees across America, that is who is going to be happy.
  And you know what, we are not here to make ourselves happy. We are 
here to make the people who sent us here and expect us to do their 
business, we are here to make them happy, and we are going to make them 
happy today, as we have done over and over again this year, by passing 
legislation that works for them, not for us.
  So there may be some unhappiness in the room because we haven't made 
every little amendment in order for this floor, but we have made the 
amendments that matter to the American people, and, more importantly, 
we passed legislation that matters to the American people, and I am 
very proud of that, and the American people, indeed, are happy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleagues as well that the 
bill that the gentleman from Alabama is talking about, his bill, when 
it--in the Rules Committee last night, the Rules Committee thought it 
was appropriate to block three germane amendments from the ranking 
member of the Education and the Workforce Committee. I mean, that is 
the process that we are dealing with here.
  The ranking member of that committee does not have the opportunity to 
bring his ideas to the floor and debate them and get a vote up or down 
on it. That is not right, and the Rules Committee, unfortunately, is 
becoming a place where democracy goes to die, where every good idea is 
routinely shot down, and it has to stop.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question. And I want to say to my colleagues that, a month ago, I stood 
at this very podium, following our Nation's deadliest mass shooting in 
Las Vegas, asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that 
we can begin to study gun violence.

                              {time}  1315

  Now I stand here again, after yet another unthinkable tragedy, 
begging my colleagues to allow us to take this small first step 
following Sunday's deadly mass shooting at First Baptist Church in 
Texas.
  Twenty-six people in that church lost their lives to gun violence, 
and that is from one single shooting. On an average day, 93 Americans 
are killed with guns.
  I would like to ask my colleagues again: What will it take?
  If the deaths of those children in Sandy Hook Elementary School 
weren't enough for Congress to take action, if the 49 lives lost in 
Orlando weren't enough, if the 58 lives lost in Las Vegas weren't 
enough, and if the 26 lives lost in Texas on Sunday aren't enough, then 
nothing may ever be enough for Congress to have the courage to do the 
right thing.
  But I am hoping that is not true. Today we can decide to take the 
first step in fighting gun violence with one vote. If we defeat the 
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H. 
Res. 367, which would establish the Select Committee on Gun Violence 
Prevention.
  It is time that we start having serious discussions about this 
problem. Moments of silence and calls for prayer are not enough. We 
have been doing that. It is time for us to get serious.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 7 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are bringing to the floor two bills today that I 
think are bad bills. But, nonetheless, they represent the thinking of 
the Republicans who are in charge of this Congress.
  What is particularly distressing to me is that, on one of those 
measures, it is being brought to the floor under a completely closed 
process.
  As I mentioned, last night, the ranking member of the Education and 
the Workforce Committee came before the Rules Committee to offer three 
germane amendments, and the Rules Committee said: No, you don't have 
the right to have a debate on your ideas, even though they are 
perfectly germane, on the House floor.
  I think that is lousy. As a result, we come today and we make 
history. This is now officially the most closed Congress ever in the 
history of our country. My friends on the other side of the aisle are 
getting up and talking about how proud they are. They talk about 
bipartisanship. What they don't tell you is that most of the 
bipartisanship are on things that really don't mean a lot: naming of 
post offices and bills that pass by 435-0. On big things, on important 
issues, they block us. I mentioned some of the things they blocked.
  I know a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle care deeply 
about the DREAMers, since Donald Trump decided to throw their fates 
into the balance. They want to do something to help these young people, 
many of whom came when they were 1 year old or 2 years old and know no 
other country as their home but this country. We tried to fix that 
legislatively, as the President said he wanted us to do, and the 
Republican majority blocked us. They blocked us.
  We tried to offer an amendment again to say let's not invest a 
gazillion dollars on a border wall. Let's invest in our people. Let's 
build up our infrastructure. Let's construct the finest railway system 
in the United States--in the world--over the next decade. They blocked 
us.
  We had an amendment to increase funding to fight rural domestic 
violence and child abuse, and they blocked us.
  We had an amendment to say we need to ensure that this culture of 
corruption that we see in the White House doesn't grow any bigger, that 
the Trump family doesn't benefit from the taxpayers, they don't benefit 
financially from the taxpayers, and we were blocked on that as well.
  Then we have been blocked on amendments to debate these wars that 
have gone on for years and years. The war in Afghanistan is endless. It 
is the longest war in American history. We can't have a debate on the 
floor. We are

[[Page H8542]]

told that it is not appropriate and that it is not the right time.
  The bottom line is, what my friends on the other side of the aisle 
are doing is they are running this place in a very authoritarian way, 
basically saying: It is our way, and that is it. It is our way or the 
highway, and you don't matter.
  Well, we have had enough. We have had enough of being shut out, and 
we are not going to shut up. We are not going to sit by and allow this 
pattern of closed rules and closed processes to continue without a 
protest. This is a serious matter.
  For the Speaker of the House in his press conference today to get up 
and say, ``Oh, we have a very open house,'' I mean, where is he living?
  That does not reflect the reality. Maybe Donald Trump can say those 
kind of things that don't reflect reality, but the Speaker of the House 
ought to know that today, under his leadership, this has become the 
most closed House ever, and it diminishes this institution and it 
diminishes every single Member of this institution.
  So vote ``no'' on this rule. I urge my Republican friends, who care 
about process, who want this place to be more deliberative, to vote 
``no.'' Send a message to your leadership that you have had enough.
  If you want more bipartisan legislation, if you want a less polarized 
Congress, then open the process up a little bit. I have news for you, 
if you do, maybe the popularity of Congress will go up a little bit. I 
think we are at, like, 12 or 13 percent now. Maybe that might get you 
up to 15 or 16 percent. But it is the right thing to do.
  This is not the way we are supposed to run a legislative body. When 
you do it this way, you end up with lousy legislation. Your healthcare 
bill was a disaster. It reflected no input from anybody. Thank God the 
Senate said no to it. We see the same thing going on with the tax bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so maybe we can bring up a little bit of a debate on the need 
for a select committee to study gun violence. But, please, vote ``no'' 
on this. Please send a message to the Republican leadership that enough 
is enough and we are tired of these closed rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again ask Members to direct 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been a very open process. At the beginning, you 
recognized me for an hour and I gave, as is customary, half of my time 
to the other side so that they could present their side.
  In our committee, the Rules Committee, we let anyone who wants to 
come--any Member who wants to come and basically say whatever they want 
to say for as long as they want to say it. We don't really have any 
rules in the Rules Committee because we want to have it so open, we 
want to give everybody such an opportunity, that we let everybody come 
and say whatever they want. Then we take it all into account and we 
make some amendments in order and some not.
  Because we have done our job so well this year, we have had so many 
bills in the House--and the House has passed them all--that this House 
is just about a record-breaking House in terms of what we are passing. 
Yes, our friends over in the Senate haven't passed a lot of them. I 
don't think the American people like that. I think the American people 
want the Senate to get to work like the House has been at work.
  This is important work, and we are here to do it and not play games. 
The bills that are under this rule are very important bills.
  I have heard a lot about climate change. The gentleman may suggest 
that people on our side of the aisle don't understand science. I am not 
a scientist, but I do understand climate change. I do understand from 
the people who are worried about it, and a lot of people are 
legitimately worried about it. The only thing you can do about that is 
to have alternative sources of energy.
  Hydroenergy is one of those sources. You don't release any carbon 
molecules in the air when you generate electricity using water. So one 
of the bills addresses that.
  The other bill--my bill--the Save the Local Business Act, is a very 
important bill, a bipartisan bill. There are bipartisan sponsors on 
this bill. As I said earlier, there are tens of thousands of businesses 
around America and hundreds of thousands of employees of those 
businesses that are aching for us to pass this bill.
  So far from being small things that don't matter--by the way, saying 
nice things about teachers isn't a small thing. I think it is a big 
thing. These are important pieces of legislation, and I am proud of the 
work that this House has done to make sure that we consider them and 
pass them.
  Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 
607 and the underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 607 Offered by Mr. McGovern:

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the resolution 
     (H. Res. 367) to establish the Select Committee on Gun 
     Violence Prevention. The first reading of the resolution 
     shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the resolution are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the resolution and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Rules. After general 
     debate the resolution shall be considered for amendment under 
     the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions 
     in the resolution are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the resolution for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the resolution to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the 
     Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to 
     no resolution on the resolution, then on the next legislative 
     day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order 
     of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the 
     Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the 
     resolution.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of House Resolution 367.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled

[[Page H8543]]

     ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the 
     previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported 
     from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to 
     amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) 
     Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the motion for 
     the previous question on a resolution reported from the 
     Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the 
     opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper 
     amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate 
     thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adopting the resolution, if ordered; and
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 182, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 610]

                               YEAS--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--182

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Brady (PA)
     Bridenstine
     Cummings
     DesJarlais
     Garrett
     Hastings
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Pocan
     Polis
     Rice (SC)
     Roybal-Allard
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1348

  Messrs. HIMES, WALZ, and JONES changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia). The question 
is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233, 
noes 182, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 611]

                               AYES--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce

[[Page H8544]]


     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--182

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Brady (PA)
     Bridenstine
     Cummings
     DesJarlais
     Garrett
     Hastings
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huffman
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Pocan
     Polis
     Roybal-Allard
     Scalise
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (FL)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1357

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________